>> a strip-like screen will present functions on an as-needed basis that fit the current task or application.

Oh, you mean like "function keys" do?

>> to simplify keyboard shortcuts traditionally used by experienced users... it could display editing commands like cut and paste during word processing tasks

Yes, because a "key" that only exists some of the time, and has no tactile feedback is easier to use without looking at it than ctrl-C.

Look - programmable OLED keys are neat, I get it. But two things: 1) if you're at the point where the keyboard is slowing you down in a particular software package, then you *are* an "experienced user", and you can probably spare the three brain cycles it'll take you to learn the keyboard shortcuts you need.

2) The laptop keyboard was already perfected, by IBM/Lenovo, circa 5-10 years ago. (Nipple and all, thanks.) As they've since abandoned it in favor of a whirling moshpit of chicklets that changes every hardware generation, perhaps they won't mind if all the other manufacturers just adopt their Platonic ideal of a design? I get that it may make a few keyboard designers redundant, but those resources can be diverted to the much more important goal of making everything one molecule thick.

Whatever happened to folks abusing the tagging system for comedic effect? There was a time when I got more enjoyment out of just reading the headlines & trying to guess what the tags would be before looking at them, and more lulz out of being pleasantly surprised to have guessed wrong.

I still see the odd 'donotwant' or 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong', I think - but it's not like the old days. Tags were fun, and google was there if you needed search.

btw - if you're wondering the relevance to this particular story, I say to you again: 'donotwant' and 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong'.

What "other enforcement"? o.k., presumably the FTC is doing other things with their time than just antitrust. But if you're talking about getting the largest enforcement effect for your tax dollar, wouldn't going after a huge company be a good buy? 1) big company = big effect (in $) on the market. 2) big company = big news = littler companies telling themselves, "Well, if google can't get away with it, than neither can we."

I'd be interested to see the actual numbers behind this comment. It smells to me like not just a case of maximum efficiency, but rather a total imbalance in the numbers. Either google is so huge that they can outspend the U.S. Government - in which case, um, antitrust? Or alternatively, it's code for, "We're stretched so thin that we genuinely can't do our job."

But, hey - limited government, right? Thank God we don't have fascist socialist muslim regulators preventing Google from coming up with yet another half-baked product that they abandon as soon as someone finds it useful.